Too Much of a Mystery [New York Times - Do not confirm Roberts]

The New York Times ^ | September 18, 2005 | Editorial

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

In the book Parkinson's Law, the observation is made that the Man Who Is Always Wrong is almost as valuable to have around as the Man Who Is Always Right. ;-)

LOL! I hsve a friend who bets on a lot of football games. Based upon his track record, one could very get rich taking the other side.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Instead of "All The News That's Fit to Print," (nicely satirized in your tagline) I'd like to offer a new motto for the Slimes: "Always Left, Never Right."

[JayNorth]

Translation: We can't endorse Roberts or any other Bush nominee who actually believe the United States Constitution is more than a piece of paper.

Here's my take on the NYT:
Translation: We can't endorse Roberts or any other Bush nominee.

[somerville]

In the last few months, their editorials have gotten really out of control. They don't even pretend to try to mask their hatred of Bush. They must be feeling really impotent.

[goldstategop]

The New York Times editors and Little Pinch are cowards... they don't even have to courage to say they want Roberts defeated because they don't like his political beliefs.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[zendari]

I hope, if, god forbid a Dem reaches presidency, the Repubs send this all right back.

[FReethesheeples]

All right!

The New York Times opposition gives me added comfort in supporting Roberts!

[TChad]

If the editors of the Weekly World News oppose Roberts too, I might have to reconsider my position.

[Libloather]

Edit -

Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg failed to live up to the worst fears of her critics in her confirmation hearings last week. But in many important areas where senators wanted to be reassured that she would be a careful guardian of Americans' rights, she refused to give any solid indication of her legal approach.

We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a nomination for associate justice, but for a nomination for a chief justice - particularly one who could serve 30 or more years - the stakes are simply too high. Senators should vote against Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg not because they know she does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because she has not met the very heavy burden of proving that she does.

Some folks live in another world...

[indianrightwinger]

Yawn!!

Back to sleep....zz...z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z